Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42443693›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026

Applying cognitive interviewing process to refine an instrument for measuring deprescribing experience and outcomes in older veterans.

Helen Omuya, Sura AlMahasis, Ejura Salihu, Lauren Welch, Trisha Raňola, Justine Manning, Shiying Mai, Betty Chewning

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Helen OmuyaUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, USA. homuya@uab.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5008-5995
Sura AlMahasisUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA.
Ejura SalihuUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA.
Lauren WelchWilliam S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, USA.
Trisha RaňolaUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA.
Justine ManningUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA.
Shiying MaiUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA.
Betty ChewningUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA. betty.chewning@wisc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, there is no validated instrument that assesses a patient's reported deprescribing experiences and outcomes. This study reports the third phase of refining such an instrument, the Deprescribing Evaluation and Quality Improvement instrument (DEQI), using cognitive interviews. Cognitive interviews have been used in the development of many survey tools; however, there is limited evidence of their use in pharmacy research, particularly in deprescribing studies involving older adults. The aim of this phase of the DEQI instrument development is to evaluate and refine the individual items to enhance their clarity to accurately reflect patient-reported experiences and outcomes after deprescribing interventions.

methodsA draft DEQI Instrument was tested through two rounds of cognitive interviews conducted four weeks apart, involving 16 Veteran adults aged 65 or older who were on multiple medications. Interviews lasted about 60-90 min. Two cognitive interviewing techniques, "think-aloud" and "verbal probing," were used. Data from the interviews were independently analyzed by four coders employing two coding techniques: interaction coding and the cognitive classification scheme (CCS) to identify problematic questions in the DEQI instrument. Based on the analysis of the first round, the items were revised and then administered again in a second round. The improvement in clarity was evaluated.

resultsParticipants were mostly male (88%) and non-Hispanic White (69%), with a mean age of 73.4 years (range 64-84). About 38% had some college or technical school education. The classification coding scheme identified 102 problematic items in the first round, with approximately 70% related to the comprehension and communication code, and around 14% related to response selection. After modifications and readministration in the second round, the number of identified problems dropped significantly from 102 to 21. Following the revision in the second round, the proportion of "immediately codable" answers increased significantly (from 0.68 to 0.80), while the proportions of "uncodable" answers and "items requiring clarification" decreased.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates the use of interaction coding and CCS to refine an effective evaluation instrument to improve deprescribing interventions with an older Veteran population. Through iterative refinement of items based on cognitive interviews, over half of the DEQI instrument's items were improved, resulting in clearer items and reduced confusion among participants. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

DeprescriptionsInterviews as TopicPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality ImprovementVeteransAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleUnited StatesVeterans HealthCognitive interviewsMeasurementsOlder adultsSurvey development

Identifiers

PMID42443693
PMCPMC13646242

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.